Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

You guys probably didn't even bother to read those two articles did you? You seem quite content to get your "truth" from the mainstream media and from Congress. Okey-dokey then.

And how do you know those articles give you the "truth"?

Did YOU read the article JonF posted?

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

You guys probably didn't even bother to read those two articles did you? You seem quite content to get your "truth" from the mainstream media and from Congress. Okey-dokey then.

One of those articles takes the fact (I assume it's a fact, at least) that the NSA director met with the Trump campaign, to mean that the NSA director met with the Trump campaign to warn Trump about Obama wiretapping. Based on... I'm not totally sure. The fact the author thinks that may be the case? Believe what you will, but I hope you don't think "heads will roll" based on the hunches of wingnut bloggers.

What I really love, is how the fact there are people who support Obama, in a branch of the government that Obama ran for 8 years, gets spun into some nefarious scheme where Obama planted nefarious supporters in the executive branch to undermine Trump. But that's how your milder conspiracy theories usually go: take something that informed people already know, but put it in a nefarious context that makes the uninformed feel like they're getting a special peek into some hidden secret.